Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board Meeting - March 18, 2026

The Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board met on March 18, 2026 (the meeting was actually held on March 17, 2026, but the transcript date is used per instructions) to review the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan draft and the Public Safety Building tree mitigation plan. The commission forwarded a recommendation to adopt the strategic plan with additional priorities and requested a revised mitigation plan for the public safety building.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the February 11, 2026 minutes with a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner Sommer abstained due to absence).

Public Comments & Testimony

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan:

• Bill Lambert (24-year resident): Expressed disappointment, citing a large park deficit, lack of specific funding and timelines, and fear the plan will be as aspirational as the 2014 plan with little implementation.
• Sheila Lederman (new resident): Raised concern that joint-use agreements with school districts could end with little notice, leaving communities like Monta Loma without parks.
• Silja Paymer (Green Spaces member): Thanked staff for adding biodiversity goals, but requested a transition to toxin-free maintenance, removal of rubber play surfaces, and prioritizing trees over shade structures.
• Shani Kleinhaus (Bird Alliance): Urged planting native vegetation citywide, noting that only native plants support local biodiversity and that species are declining.
• Albert Jeans: Argued that school fields should not be counted as parks because they lack amenities, and highlighted severe inequity in park distribution, with the Sterling planning area having only 0.4 acres per 1,000 residents compared to 4.0 in Mira Monte.
• Bruce England (Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning): Praised progress but requested nine changes including no artificial turf, adequate restrooms, preference for natural shade, and adherence to dark sky ordinances.
• Lada Adamic: Criticized the plan's inaccurate characterization of bicycle access and urged attention to pollen-producing tree species to avoid excluding allergy sufferers.
• Robert Cox (Mountain View Neighborhood Association): Emphasized the need for specific funding details, a commitment that park fees collected in underserved areas be spent there, and support for real trees and restrooms.
• Cliff Chambers: Asked the commission to require a prioritized list of actions tied to known funding (Measure G and potential bond) to build public confidence.
• Mary Dateo: Supported the biodiversity additions and suggested making native trees the default for all park plantings.
• Rashmi: Requested natural park designs, a pilot project without rubber surfaces, prioritizing trees over shade structures, and questioned why skate parks are listed as a priority when community surveys rank them lowest.
• Jessica Chohan: Posed the question: will this plan actually lead to meaningful improvements in park-deficient neighborhoods? She urged concrete recommendations rather than aspirational goals.
• Hala Alshahwany: Stressed focusing on underserved areas, lamented the loss of hundreds of heritage trees, and proposed designating Cuesta Annex as a community urban forest.
• Henry: Argued that the level-of-service methodology is inconsistent, counting undeveloped parcels (e.g., Cuesta Annex) as parkland, and recommended the commission seek clarification and a clear replacement for the three-acre-per-1,000 standard.
• April Webster: Said the plan lacks the teeth for implementation; called for stronger links between goals, funding, and delivery, and integration with the active transportation plan.
• Andrea: Opposed artificial turf and poured-in-place rubber, requesting that the plan explicitly exclude these materials from future projects.
• Jim Zaorski (representing five residents): Detailed that since the 2022 plan, only 1.5 acres of parkland were acquired despite population growth; questioned financial feasibility given housing element mandates and urged delaying approval until funding sources are clarified.

Public Safety Building:

• Bruce England: Objected to the removal of 42 heritage trees, arguing that city projects should set an example for developers and should preserve more trees or plant fully native species.
• Mary Dateo: Noted that a taller building could have saved trees and land; criticized the proposed tree palette (over 30 cherry laurels), which are small shrubs, and called for more large native trees, better planting spaces, and phasing removals.
• Rashmi: Expressed frustration that a city project contradicts the recently adopted biodiversity plan by removing 42 heritage trees and planting only nine native trees out of 118 replacements.
• April Webster: Framed mature trees as critical infrastructure that should not be casually removed; asked whether full lifecycle costs were considered and why native species are not the default.

Discussion Items

5.1 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan

• Staff presented the updated draft, incorporating feedback from the November PRC meeting and the January City Council study session. Key changes include a new biodiversity goal, reallocation of trail corridor acreage to planning areas (reducing the citywide parkland shortage estimate from 87 acres to 53.5 acres, with a cost of ~$722 million), and 52 action items.
• Commissioner Bryant advocated for prioritizing underserved areas and adding immediate, surgical improvements (e.g., planting native canopy trees citywide) rather than waiting for large-scale park renovations.
• Commissioner Davis supported moving the plan forward but suggested attaching a funding strategy document with alternative scenarios.
• Commissioner Sylvester noted an existential crisis: the plan catches up to current deficits but does little to address future population growth (potentially 50,000+ new residents). She worried that approving the plan might lead to complacency.
• Vice Chair Sommer proposed a new park typology (natural passive vs. active amenity) and suggested replacing the three-acre-per-1,000 planning area standard with a 10-minute-walk equity metric.
• Commissioner Mitchner emphasized not letting perfect be the enemy of good and urged forward movement with two recommendations: prioritize underserved areas and implement near-term improvements.
• After extensive debate, the commission voted 5-0 to forward the plan to City Council with an attached recommendation to prioritize expansion of parks and open space in underserved areas (accounting for school field dependence and 10-minute walk access) and to identify opportunities for near-term improvements to all parks, emphasizing native canopy trees and landscaping consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

5.2 Public Safety Building (Project 20-49)

• Staff presented plans for a new three-story public safety building on the same 4.3-acre site, requiring removal of 42 heritage trees and 34 non-heritage trees. The proposed mitigation is to plant 84 trees on site (2:1 ratio for heritage trees) using a palette of native and "semi-native" trees.
• Multiple commissioners criticized the plant palette, calling "semi-native" a misnomer and noting that only nine of 118 proposed trees are true natives. They also questioned the adequacy of the replacement for canopy loss, as many proposed trees are small species like cherry laurel.
• Commissioner Bryant argued the commission's role includes recommending appropriate mitigation, not just the ratio. She insisted on a preponderance of native trees and off-site planting if on-site space is insufficient.
• Commissioner Davis said he could not support any mitigation plan that fails to adequately protect heritage trees, even refusing to support a revised plan.
• Assistant Public Works Director Arango indicated the project has some timeline flexibility and staff can return with a revised plan.
• The commission voted 4-1 (Davis opposed) to direct staff to come back with a revised mitigation plan focusing on canopy replacement with a preponderance of native trees (2:1 for heritage, 1:1 for non-heritage) and exploring placement of mitigation trees in the neighborhood if on-site space is limited.

Key Outcomes

• Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan: Recommended for adoption by City Council (5-0), with the commission adding a directive to prioritize underserved areas and immediate improvements emphasizing native trees and biodiversity-compatible landscaping.
• Public Safety Building Mitigation: The commission rejected the original mitigation plan and directed staff (4-1) to return with a revised plan with higher native species content, better canopy replacement, and potential off-site planting.